To fight bias, colleges are employing literal speech police

When students see something that makes them uncomfortable, hurt or offended, on many campuses they can report that language to the administration — in particular, to something called a bias response team.

There are at least 232 bias response teams on American campuses with jurisdiction over the speech of least 2.84 million students — at schools like the University of Utah, George Mason University and SUNY Buffalo — according to a new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Bias response teams are collectives of administrators, faculty and other college officials. They encourage students to report speech that may be offensive, hurtful or marginalizing to minority groups — ultimately in an effort to help create a more inclusive campus.

Once a student’s speech is reported, university officials investigate. If the panel concludes it was biased speech, he or she could be sanctioned by the administration.

“It’s difficult to know” how students are punished, the author of the report, Adam Steinbaugh, told USA TODAY College, because few colleges release information about their investigations into reported bias incidents. And those that do release information tend to only publish vague reports. “Often, a college will simply say that they provided an ‘educational’ response or performed an ‘investigation,’” Steinbaugh said in an email interview.

Steinbaugh said he was motivated to investigate these organizations because he was troubled by the use of campus police and security officials to investigate students’ speech — 42% of college bias response teams include members of campus law enforcement, the FIRE report discovered.

“Many campuses, especially public universities, have police forces legally indistinguishable from your local police department. They have the power to investigate, detain and arrest,” Steinbaugh said.

Most bias incidents that are reported are constitutionally protected speech, according to the report. But since bias incidents can potentially involve criminal conduct, the use of law enforcement officers is understandable, Steinbaugh noted.

However, “that means that police may be scrutinizing reports of protected speech, and it certainly sends the message that police will be monitoring reports of offensive speech,” Steinbaugh said. “That’s troubling.”

The full extent of the role of law enforcement in these teams, and what they investigate, is unclear. “Transparency is not often high on the agenda of universities and colleges,” Steinbaugh said.

Other schools, such as Colby College, once had logs of bias incident reports available to the public, but no longer do. The Colby administration did not respond to requests for comment.

To uncover concrete examples of reported speech, FIRE had to rely mostly on public record requests and the work of journalists such as Jillian Kay Melchior of Heat Street and Robby Soave of Reason.

Soave seems to have been first to report on the University of Oregon’s Bias Response Team, finding that not only were students reporting other students, but that they were also making complaints about posters, parties, newspapers and signs.

Melchoir was apparently the first to report on a professor at the University of Northern Colorado, Mike Jensen, who was reported to a bias team after encouraging his students to discuss controversial issues, including transgender rights. The professor was not invited back to teach the following semester, though it’s not clear the bias report was why.

The number of complaints varies dramatically from school to school. While some annual reports show only a “handful of reports in a given year,” others can show “hundreds in a matter of months,” Steinbaugh said.

Students USA TODAY College talked to about bias response teams had mixed opinions of them.

Cameron Rockelein, a self-identified transgender man majoring in sociology at Fordham College in N.Y., expressed support for his college’s bias team, arguing they “absolutely help minorities or marginalized populations on campus.”

“If done correctly, they can support a student who has experienced something terrible. They may even be able to teach the perpetrators that hateful actions are not condoned by the university, or even the error of their ways,” Rockelein said. “I have faith that if teams are well-intentioned and open-minded that they will make the right choices and support any student who has been made to feel unwelcome.”

Asked about whether he saw these systems as a threat to freedom of speech on campus — one common critique — he said, “I can see why this would worry some, but as a queer person, I am more worried about the safety of marginalized people like me.”

Zoe Musgrave, a multiracial student majoring in nursing at Otterbein College in Ohio, said that although her campus doesn’t have an official bias response team, she would fully support the creation of one. “It’s very empowering if students have a place to go to if they feel discriminated,” adding that she believed they could “they help minorities speak up racism or discrimination or injustice,” she said.

Most students “do not speak out” when confronted with discrimination, she added.

On the other hand, Autumn Price, a senior studying history at Liberty University, in Virginia told USA TODAY College that she was “very happy” her school doesn’t have a bias response team, which she learned exist through news coverage.

She believes they could cause conflict and division. “Instead of being able to express themselves freely, students may find themselves withholding their viewpoints and ideas for fear of being reported to university officials,” she said, fearing her peers “could simply report any speech that he/she didn’t like for any reason.”

And Alex Solomon, a sophomore at Rider University in N.J., thinks there’s a disconnect between the idea and reality.

“Bias response teams come from a good idea — an idea that students should be comfortable on their college campuses,” he said, noting that he felt they could “reduce the usage of words” that are offensive to students, which he said was “one example of the way one of these teams can be helpful.”

“But in practice (they) have done more harm than good, censoring other students and opposing ideas,” he said.

It’s unclear what the average college student thinks about these systems. No national survey has gauged student sentiment yet.

And these teams have First Amendment implications. Punishing students for constitutionally protected speech has the potential to lead to a lawsuit, the report notes.

“Each time a bias response team embarks upon an investigation or intervention with the reported person, it risks exposing the institution and its administrators to claims under the First Amendment,” Steinbaugh wrote.

Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, told USA TODAY College there is no indication from the Supreme Court that colleges can take away students’ right to free speech.

“The Supreme Court has been extremely protective of freedom of speech on college campuses,” LoMonte said. “There’s never been any indication from the Supreme Court that a college student has any less right to speak freely than any other citizen.” Though administrators don’t always realize that, he pointed out.

He concurred with the FIRE report: “By definition, a college cannot impose punishment on constitutionally protected speech.”

If colleges punish students for constitutionally protected speech, they could risk a lawsuit, he said, which is why bias response teams should be “well trained and have good legal advice.”

This would ensure the bias response team can “coexist happily with the First Amendment,” while being able to respond to more serious complaints about potentially harassing environments. “Nobody wants colleges to be hostile places for women and minorities,” he said.

The FIRE report recommends that administrators strike a balance between caring for the well-being of students and not infringing on their freedom of speech.

“It is understandable that universities wish to monitor the climate for students on their campuses and to have support systems in place for students who, for one reason or another, may be struggling to feel at home on campus,” Steinbaugh wrote. “But it does not follow from these precepts that universities must effectively establish a surveillance state on campus where students and faculty must guard their every utterance for fear of being reported to and investigated by the administration.”